The original version of that last picture almost didn't make it into my Flickr album at all, but the frame saves it.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Flickr Toys
Ah, the fun to be had at BigHugeLabs:
The original version of that last picture almost didn't make it into my Flickr album at all, but the frame saves it.
The original version of that last picture almost didn't make it into my Flickr album at all, but the frame saves it.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Free the rice, for the rice wishes to be free
This is so much FUN! I managed a peak word level of 47 before I ran out of time and had to return to work, but the score really didn't matter. What amused me most was seeing just how many words I knew without realising I knew them. In many cases, I simply chose the synonym that felt right, and it was. Some deep brain connectivity going on there.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Just off Avenue Q
I must have had my camera eyes in this weekend, because I kept wanting to take photos of everything I saw. Just as well I never had a decent camera with me, else I might never have got home.
This is one of my very very few successful phone camera snaps, which came out exactly as it looked to the eye; a rare thing indeed.
*likes bright yellow a LOT*
This is one of my very very few successful phone camera snaps, which came out exactly as it looked to the eye; a rare thing indeed.
*likes bright yellow a LOT*
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Little demons that flutter in our ears
this mind dump brought to you compliments of a response to a lj-Polyamory post
Is it true that we have no obligation to anyone for our actions? I can think of at least 3 obvious exceptions to the statement in general (those to whom we've extended a contractual obligation e.g. married or legal partners, employers; those with whom we have a familial obligation e.g. our children and, to a lesser degree, our parents and siblings; those to whom we owe fiscal obligations e.g. creditors, service staff) and I'm fairly sure there are more, so I've narrowed it down to the topic under discussion:
Is it true that we have no obligation to anyone for the lovers we take?
I can see why this would be an attractive proposition. The current culture of human rights espousal in Western culture tells us that we have almost limitless rights to self-expression. Surely who we take into our beds falls into this category? If I want to sleep with you, then I have the right to do so, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to curtail a fundamental human right, and is therefore in the wrong. Why would I apologise for my actions to such a person. I am right.
There is no sarcasm or irony intended in that examination. I was trying to follow a logical path of argument stemming from the initial proposition, and it would seem that limitless rights of self-expression might just result in a complete lack of obligation for one's actions.
So why am I having such a problem with the concept?
Mostly, I think, because I believe that there is one obligation that I always owe, irrespective of how many others I might choose to accept, and that is my obligation to myself. I need to like the person I am in order to live with myself. I don't know that I could like someone who behaves, with full knowledge of the circumstances, in a way that is almost certain to cause pain to someone somewhere, even if there is no deliberate intention to cause pain or the person who will be hurting is not a friend. Just because our village is now so large that we don't know everyone in it doesn't make it okay to hurt someone in that village in a way that, up until the last few hundred years or so, would have been inescapable and unignorable. Not for me, anyway.
When I do cause unavoidable pain - and causing pain or offence is unavoidable as long as people can hold different opinions - I will always apologise for causing pain, even if I feel my actions are justified.
Maybe that's it; maybe that's where the logical dissonance arises. You say, "I would NEVER apologize to someone for who I had sex with", but I don't think that's what people are saying. I think they're saying, "Apologise for causing pain." Acknowledge that a wrong was perpetrated, and that unnecessary pain resulted, and go from there.
*doffs Logical hat, and unwillingly dons Opinion hat, handing out pinches of salt to be used as necessary*
I do think that it's a little naive to simply absolve yourself of any obligation to a dishonest lover's monogamous partner. I believe that the responsibility in any relationship lies equally with all participants. So, when you're sleeping with a monogamous individual who is cheating on a partner, and you do so in full knowledge of the fact, you are equally to blame for the transgression of the existing contract of trust. I know this is a judgmental statement, and I know we're supposed to be supportive and understanding of one another, given that we're all flying in the face of current social norms, but...
Every monogamous person who cheats on their partner with someone requires someone to participate in the act. If the cheating occurs without that participant being aware of the person's monogamous status, the word for that participant is 'victim', and no-one would ever hold a victim accountable for the acts committed against them. When the participant knows about the monogamy, and goes ahead anyway... well, alcoholics coined a word for 'those cunning, compulsive and malevolent compatriots we eagerly allow to drag us along to our willful destruction'1 - enablers.
So the real question you need to ask yourself is, "Am I okay with being an enabler?" and not, "Do I apologise for who I have sex with?" The answer is, of course, still up to you - who the hell knows what's 'right' and 'wrong' anyway? - but answering it may give you a different perspective to your current view, and new perspectives are always handy!
*rips Opinion hat off and flings it savagely into the closet to resume gathering dust*
For the record, I HATE finding myself on the same side of the fence as the Moral Majority. It almost always means I'm looking at something the wrong way.
*waits eagerly for someone to help me back across*
1Although alcoholics may have given us the concept of 'enablers', it is actually The Enablers who provided the quote. I am not implying any connection between the two.
Is it true that we have no obligation to anyone for our actions? I can think of at least 3 obvious exceptions to the statement in general (those to whom we've extended a contractual obligation e.g. married or legal partners, employers; those with whom we have a familial obligation e.g. our children and, to a lesser degree, our parents and siblings; those to whom we owe fiscal obligations e.g. creditors, service staff) and I'm fairly sure there are more, so I've narrowed it down to the topic under discussion:
Is it true that we have no obligation to anyone for the lovers we take?
I can see why this would be an attractive proposition. The current culture of human rights espousal in Western culture tells us that we have almost limitless rights to self-expression. Surely who we take into our beds falls into this category? If I want to sleep with you, then I have the right to do so, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to curtail a fundamental human right, and is therefore in the wrong. Why would I apologise for my actions to such a person. I am right.
There is no sarcasm or irony intended in that examination. I was trying to follow a logical path of argument stemming from the initial proposition, and it would seem that limitless rights of self-expression might just result in a complete lack of obligation for one's actions.
So why am I having such a problem with the concept?
Mostly, I think, because I believe that there is one obligation that I always owe, irrespective of how many others I might choose to accept, and that is my obligation to myself. I need to like the person I am in order to live with myself. I don't know that I could like someone who behaves, with full knowledge of the circumstances, in a way that is almost certain to cause pain to someone somewhere, even if there is no deliberate intention to cause pain or the person who will be hurting is not a friend. Just because our village is now so large that we don't know everyone in it doesn't make it okay to hurt someone in that village in a way that, up until the last few hundred years or so, would have been inescapable and unignorable. Not for me, anyway.
When I do cause unavoidable pain - and causing pain or offence is unavoidable as long as people can hold different opinions - I will always apologise for causing pain, even if I feel my actions are justified.
Maybe that's it; maybe that's where the logical dissonance arises. You say, "I would NEVER apologize to someone for who I had sex with", but I don't think that's what people are saying. I think they're saying, "Apologise for causing pain." Acknowledge that a wrong was perpetrated, and that unnecessary pain resulted, and go from there.
*doffs Logical hat, and unwillingly dons Opinion hat, handing out pinches of salt to be used as necessary*
I do think that it's a little naive to simply absolve yourself of any obligation to a dishonest lover's monogamous partner. I believe that the responsibility in any relationship lies equally with all participants. So, when you're sleeping with a monogamous individual who is cheating on a partner, and you do so in full knowledge of the fact, you are equally to blame for the transgression of the existing contract of trust. I know this is a judgmental statement, and I know we're supposed to be supportive and understanding of one another, given that we're all flying in the face of current social norms, but...
Every monogamous person who cheats on their partner with someone requires someone to participate in the act. If the cheating occurs without that participant being aware of the person's monogamous status, the word for that participant is 'victim', and no-one would ever hold a victim accountable for the acts committed against them. When the participant knows about the monogamy, and goes ahead anyway... well, alcoholics coined a word for 'those cunning, compulsive and malevolent compatriots we eagerly allow to drag us along to our willful destruction'1 - enablers.
So the real question you need to ask yourself is, "Am I okay with being an enabler?" and not, "Do I apologise for who I have sex with?" The answer is, of course, still up to you - who the hell knows what's 'right' and 'wrong' anyway? - but answering it may give you a different perspective to your current view, and new perspectives are always handy!
*rips Opinion hat off and flings it savagely into the closet to resume gathering dust*
For the record, I HATE finding myself on the same side of the fence as the Moral Majority. It almost always means I'm looking at something the wrong way.
*waits eagerly for someone to help me back across*
1Although alcoholics may have given us the concept of 'enablers', it is actually The Enablers who provided the quote. I am not implying any connection between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)